Ok man...

The series of posts below, they've from this very thread:



How much more does it need to be spelled out?

I mean he's not, but.....

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobclifto...Aq9#.mj0y7pPYd

so how did Felix Kjellberg respond to the issue

http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/18/146...p-anti-semitic

As Huey is posting now, and what Foldn, Lord and so many of the people defending the alt right trolls here don't understand is how the "anti SJW" crowd started. They started as trolls online, on places like iRC and 4chan and others. These are places that just did stuff like doxx females, circulate nudes of underage girls and so, so many other deplorable things for "lulz." Out of this culture, people like pdp came. It is a culture of doing bad things for shock value, then laughing and pointing at the people offended at doing the things you shock them with.

Those are all fine and dandy opinions, yall. Of course, they could just be clueless Reefer Madness

Triggered

please post this again using simpler words.

i don't want to reply to something i misunderstand.

Once you connect this to the RW culture of mockery and identity derision which circulates on talk radio, a bigger picture of a bigger trend is traceable.

One set of groups of ideological partisan mockers met and fell in hate with new, younger other groups of just plain mockers. And the alt-write and the 45's republicans were born.

Asking questions like "How did the ideas and behaviors of "virtual boot-stomping" develop in RW information age cultures?" leads to these connections.

why make this so simplistic? it's not as clear cut as you make it seem.

I hear ya. Listening to countless hours of radio and reading endless streams of people output is actually hard to simplify. It have no intent to make it all seem clear cut. The connections and patterns that relate various individuals and groups under 'new trump authoritarianism' are not at all very clear cut. It's actually damn odd people like rural nativists are in a sort of coalition with anonymous internet mockers, from the surface.

Here's my general view of political correctness. All social groups of size have speech codes that are supposed to govern professional life and polite society. One of the purposes of these codes is to alert people as to what things are offensive to say. These can be around moral topics, or religion, royalty, politics, class, sex, and so on. American business, educational, political, and popular culture has become more diverse and some formerly outcast or somewhat stigmatized groups are becoming socially acceptable (eg Jews, black people, women, gays, trans) in higher and broader circles of power. Part of the process of being accepted into these cultures is that the speech codes change to exclude offensive terms for these groups as well.

Most of political correctness is a way of describing these changing speech codes. People opposed to political correctness fall into a few camps. Some people are like Milo - these are basically trolls, provocateurs, satirists, comedians, whatever. Basically, people who enjoy shocking mainstream society, who want to break social rules just because they are there. There is always an audience for these people in the US, as good jokes are often made from attacking manners, and people like their rebellious image.

Some are people with more abstract objections to speech codes or who object to the way in which these new speech codes are enforced. Most people don't like to change their values too much, and there can be political value in protecting older values, so sometimes new speech codes are enforced through authoritarian or illiberal methods. People get suspicious of how sincere these liberal critics are, but I think that at least some of them are sincere, eg Sam Harris is one of the more sincere people in public life.

Some are people who are just opposed to the new codes because they aren't comfortable with including these new social groups into mainstream society. They don't want trans, gays, black people, etc to be acceptable or representative of mainstream society. Thus, they disagree with the motivation for not offending these groups in the first place.

I guess we have a different understanding of what counts as evidence.

I'd like to point out here how closely my defense of the left from illiberalism mimics your own defense of the right from charges of racism or sexism. You argue that the right or people opposed to PC culture are not all racists as they are painted by progressives. You argue that bigotry is probably declining, as it has for a long time, and that the claim that it isn't on the part of the left is the result of emphasizing fringe right-wing elements and misrepresenting the views of more mainstream people. You say that people on the left shouldn't be so concerned about a rise of racism/sexism/fascism from the right.

Well, ceteris paribus.

The bolded is incorrect.

Also, here you are responding to my argument - one I've made numerous times and you've never addressed - by claiming that I disagree with you because of my lack of experience in arguing with leftists in the right way. Huh. Isn't that your main complaint - leftists responding to arguments by attacking the biases of the person making it instead of addressing the argument itself?

Okay. Let's get into it now as the main topic is getting tired.

I really don't think this whole "PC Police" topic can be discussed minus the "Run Amok" part. This whole phenomenon was basically think tank created c1990.

The OSJer 'movement' is astroturf. It's propaganda. The purpose it serves is to conveniently and effectively shut down a wide range of conversations. Unequal pay for equal work, redlining, the burden of unwaged work falling mainly on woman, etc, etc are very profitable practices. The OSJer 'movement' is a rear guard action to preserve that privilege.

The intellectual leaders, or public faces, of the OSJer 'movement' might be trolls, or have real (but marginal) concerns, or just be deplorables, as you say. IMO the rank-n-file OSJer is much, much different.

Your rank-n-file OSJer has been indoctrinated by this propaganda.

They don't have an intellectual grounding for what they believe and do. Instead they've been brainwashed y/o think it's cool, hip, and edgy. IRL they're like the proverbial toad, who'll tongue flick at any object going by at a certain speed. They'll wait till they hear one of their trigger words, then gleefully destroy the conversation by whining about the Run Amok PC Police.

Online, we see just how much of a learned & regurgitated behavior this shiz really is.

Online these brainwashed fools repeat IRL 'talking points' that just simply don't translate or even make since over the interwebs. Prime examples are "yelling an screaming" and being "shouted down", which are simply logical impossibilities. IRL nobody pursues the meta-conversation the OSJers derail to, because IRL it's easy for the OSJers to avoid such, and IRL who wants to waste their time discussing nonsense with a disagreeable deplorable. Online it's easy to pursue that meta-conversation, and what do we find: OSJers don't have any 'arguments' at all, just some memorized 'talking points', and they'll universally refuse to engage in that meta-conversation under any circumstances.

No argument found.

This is absolutely correct, but even if you think it isn't, answer this:

Where are the alt-right arguments? Surely a movement that Trolly, ShameTrolly, Wookie, Fly and the rest of us have created must have some adherents here at two plus two, right? Where are they? All we have are "liberals" so outraged at "SJW"s that they create 57-part Youtoobz about them.

The alt-right doesn't spread their message, because their message is stupid and hateful and idiotic. They know this. So they create "gamergate" and do a lot of serious pretending.

Another way to say the same thing about this whole OSJer/SJWer phenomenon...

When out-of-the-closet race realists start pushing their pseudo-science, is it best to engage them solely on the level of scientific debate? The answer is 'no', of course. Engaging those fools solely on the level of scientific debate only legitimizes their pseudo-science. Instead, a holistic response, one that centers on why they are pushing this propaganda, is called for.

It's the same with these OSJers.

Taking their whining and rationalizations at face value only legitimizes their odious conversation destroying behaviors. Instead, a holistic response, one that centers on who is pushing this propaganda, and why, is called for.

shamefully SJWs in sports writing want athletes to get paid, lgbt players to be out in the open and head injuries to not kill footbal players https://theringer.com/how-sportswrit...aba#.u0seqlf0p

I'm still waiting to hear literally ANY examples of things people want to say that aren't being allowed because of the "SJW movement".

Populist correctness: the new PC culture of Trump's America and Brexit Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw

Here is an article that explains it better than I would:

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-...8cb#.42h2ixzfi

He wants it as simple as he wants it and not a jot simpler, people!

Hear, hear.

Left wing political correctness is out of control

http://iowastartingline.com/2017/02/...-universities/

Lol Iowa ends up with 0 party registered faculty voting for that party in elections.

Let it pass and then all the Democrats go and change their party registration to Republican. EZ game.

Which is what dereds said. I'm slow.

So the investigation into new fascism goes back years and it's "funny" so much of it is just being audacious out in the open. It literally seems to provoke satire.

A situation to face now is how many people are plainly unprepared for real nonsense?

Like what is even a plan for people who have been exposed to "wild" propaganda that is fascist in nature. People don't all know what to do when grandma shares poopcolorshirt propaganda on FB all summer.

Like do we justify the reality of actual influence-seeking nonsense non-socially, because that's like poking your eyes and ears out.

My "advise" to the 'SJW' in that spot was go find who grandma is getting memes from and observe.

And then fake news was born. Lets not deal with justifying that socially either, because we were even told 'words don't matter'.

What would warriors of justice acting socially be really doing during these real times?

And it's funny that word meanings are much stickier than they can seem in the short-term.

SJWs is one changed letter and arrangement from what?

"Who are we really talking about in politics today?" I ask socially and with justice.